COJUANGCOS ASSURE COOPERATION AND COMPLIANCE ON SC LUISITA RULING

OWNERS of Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac province said they will work in “full cooperation in the expeditious completion of the process” of distributing the 4,915 hectares of land to farmer beneficiaries as ordered by the Supreme Court (SC).
In a statement issued through lawyer Antonio Ligon, the Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) said “the Cojuangco family expresses its full confidence that the SC decision regarding the fate of Hacienda Luisita is a just resolution for all parties concerned.”

Chief Justice Renato Corona laughs it up.

HLI said that “the Hacienda be subjected to land reform, and as the Supreme Court (SC) recently declared to land distribution, is a verdict the Cojuangco family embraces and should be a glowing legacy for the late former President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino.”

“It cannot be argued that Mrs. Aquino made decisive move to place Hacienda Luisita in the 1980s under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) although the preference of farmer-beneficiaries for stock distribution option prevailed in at least three referendums over land distribution,” it stressed.

“Now that the High Court maintains that land distribution is the only resolution, the Cojuangco family guarantees its full cooperation in the expeditious completion of this process and put all other issues to rest,” it pointed out.

The SC earlier declared final its November 22, 2011 resolution that ordered the actual distribution of the 4,915 hectares of Hacienda Luisita to 6,296 farmer beneficiaries who pay just compensation based on the 1989 land valuation.

Immediately after the announcement of the SC ruling on Hacienda Luisita, the owners of the plantation – also through Ligon – said: “We have always believed that the purpose of the law is ultimate justice and equal rule for everyone.

The application of the law in this case is no exception. The majority of the justices have spoken. HLI shall abide and will comply promptly with what is required by the decision.”

On the issue of just compensation, HLI said that there is a formula in the law that has to be applied.

“We will await the processes in compliance with the determination of just compensation provided for in the law,” it said.
Earlier, Agrarian Reform Secretary Virgilio delos Reyes had said his department would start immediately the process of distributing the land of Hacienda Luisita to its farmer beneficiaries.
“We will do all these things simultaneously: the valuation, ocular inspection, and the identification of the beneficiaries,” he said.The determination of just compensation would have to be done by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
President Benigno S . Aquino III's first appointee to the high court , Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno voted to allow an agency under Malacanang determine the amount which the Hacienda Luisita Inc.
(HLI) is to receive as compensation for placing the sugar estate under the government's agrarian reform program.
At the end of its deliberations in Baguio City , court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said the SC in a vote of eight to six however ruled that the 1989 rates for the real estate prices of the estate will determine the compensation given to HLI which is largely controlled by the family of the president.
Aside from Sereno, those who voted to remand the question of the reckoning point for just compensation to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) were Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo.
Two other Aquino appointees Associate Justices Estela Bernabe and Bienvenido Reyes had sided with the minority position to send the question of payment price back to the executive department.
Militant groups claiming to represent farmworker beneficiaries in the hacienda earlier asked that Sereno inhibit herself in the case following her original dissenting opinion that the significantly higher market value of the land as of January 2, 2006 and not the 1989 rates should have been the reckoning point for just compensation.
Sereno's dissenting opinion would have resulted in a P 10 billion windfall for the hacienda. Another key supporter of the president who is reportedly being considered by Malacanang as a possible replacement for the chief justice position, senior associate justice Antonio Carpio inhibited himself from the proceedings.
The majority who ruled for the significantly lower 1989 rates as a reckoning point were Chief Justice Renato Corona, and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Arturo Brion, Teresita Leonardo- De Castro, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama , Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza.
The SC's Marquez said the case was just one of more than 200 other suits taken by the tribunal during its en banc session.
The high court, in fine, upheld its earlier resolution allowing the distribution of the 4,915.75-hectare Hacienda Luisita to its more than 6,000 farmer-beneficiaries. The Hacienda Luisita Inc. sought the Court's reversal of its November 22, 2011 resolution clarifying points in its July 5 decision on the matter.
In its motion for clarification and reconsideration, the HLI insisted that the reckoning period for the computation of the just compensation on its agricultural lands should at the time of the taking or at least at the issuance of the notice of coverage by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) on January 2, 2006 pursuant to PARC's resolution recalling the approval of the SDP.
Alternatively, the HLI asked the Court to leave it up to the Land Bank and the Department of Agrarian Reform the determination of the reckoning period which is necessary in fixing the just compensation for the property.
In its November 22 resolution, the Court affirmed its July 5 decision that the just compensation for HLI’s agricultural land that will be transferred for land distribution to the farmer-beneficiaries should be computed based on the valuation of the land in 1989, when Presidential Agrarian Reform Council approved its stock distribution plan (SDP).
The Court said when PARC approved HLI’s SDP, it was only the time that farmer-beneficiaries were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita.
The Court also noted that under RA 6657 the awarded lands may only be transferred or conveyed after ten 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP) or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). ######

SUITS SUE COMELEC OVER PLAN TO BUY DEFECTIVE POLL MACHINES

SUITS SUE COMELEC OVER PLAN TO BUY DEFECTIVE POLL MACHINES

THREE petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court rising to the challenge of Commission on Elections (Comelec) chairman Sixto Brillantes for disgruntled parties to sue the collegial body over its plan to proceed with the purchase of more than 80,000 election machines earlier found to be defective.

Leading the petitioners are former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Auxiliary Bishop of Manila Broderick S. Pabillo and Solita "Winnie" C. Monsod of the Movement for Good Governance.

The suits are asking the high court to nullify a P 1 billion government contract for Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) purchase of some 82,000 PCOS machines (Precinct Count Optical Scan) from Smartmatic-TIM.

In a statement, one of the three petitioners said the "petition is being filed to nullify the new contract between Comelec and the Smartmatic-TIM to purchase the latter’s PCOS machines because the option to purchase had expired and is against the law, according to the Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) & Comelec Advisory Council (CAC); the PCOS machines were proven to be deficient with errors and bugs (as confirmed by Comelec & Smartmatic); and for other legal grounds."

Last March 22, the Comelec's Brillantes dared  those opposed to the second Comelec-Smartmatic deal “to sue” Comelec.

        In another petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, the petitioners led by Davao Archbishop Fernando Capalla, former Marawi City mayor Omar Alih, and former Quezon City congresswoman Mary Anne Susano claimed that the deal was marred with irregularities, hence, should be voided.

They bared in their petition that the deal was bereft of a public bidding which was clearly provided for by law.
Furthermore, the petitioners expressed fears over the Comelec’s technical skills and competency to maintain the machines while in its possession.

In their petition, the petitioners urged the SC to issue a temporary restraining order while the petition is awaiting resolution or ruling on the merits.

Likewise, they petitioned the high court to issue a mandamus compelling the Comelec to conduct a public bidding for the equipment.

They also pointed out the alleged technical infirmities during the 2010 polls which include delays in delivery, recall of compact flash cards, and disabling of important security features
 
Smartmatic-TIM won the contract for the automation of the 2010 presidential poll. It was the country’s first automated election to replace manual counting.

Last year, the  Supreme Court  (SC) turned down for lack of merit the motion filed by an advocacy group seeking to cite the Comelec in contempt.
         The Center for Empowerment in Governance (Cenpeg)  claims that the poll body acted contumaciously in imposing restrictions on the review of the source codes for the automated elections.
          In a five-page resolution, the Court en banc held otherwise and said that the Comelec has valid reasons for imposing restrictions as part of security measures.
          Under the guidelines of the Comelec, an interested party may review the source code but it must first sign a non-disclosure agreement, submit the methodology for review he proposes to use, do the review in a restricted facility on a read-only copy, not take out the code or any part of it or bring copy equipment, and submit to Comelec a report after the review.
          The SC added that the source codes used in the elections remains to be the intellectual property of Smartmatic-Total Information Management Corp. as the latter has not ceded its ownership right to the Comelec.
          “None of these conditions, essentially designed to prevent copying, appropriation, and unauthorized use of the source code, has been demonstrated as making it impossible for Cenpeg to conduct a proper source code review. Cenpeg has not even attempted to do the review under such conditions,” the Court declared.
          Cenpeg, according to the Court, cannot demand the same conditions for review that Comelec allowed SysTest Labs, the international election n systems certification company that conducted the source code review and certification that the law required.

          It explained that Systest Labs’ review and certification formed part of the process for completing the source code preparation. It is not the source code review contemplated for Cenpeg and other similarly placed parties or groups.

          In 2010 the Court issued a decision directing the Comelec to make the source codes for the AES technologies it used in the last May 10 national and local elections available to Cenpeg and other interested political parties or groups for independent review.

          Cenpeg claims that the source code remained important and relevant despite that the election had already been held in light of several admissions of errors and claims of fraud.

          Under RA 9369, the source code is described as the “human readable instructions that define what the computer equipment will do.

          In granting Cenpeg’s petition, the Court noted that Section 12 of Republic Act 9369 or the poll automation law  is clear that the Comelec is required to make the source code open to any interested party for review once an AES technology is selected for implementation.
   
          On  February 19, 2010, various groups, including Cenpeg presented a joint  statement that they had chosen not to take part in the scheduled source code review since it was limited to a “walkthrough” of the source codes.

          They noted that SysTest Labs, which conducted an earlier source code review and certification, did not work under the same restrictions and controls and was allowed four months to do the review.

    In its November 30, 2010 motion to cite Comelec in contempt, Cenpeg alleged that they demanded compliance with the Court’s decision but it refused to release to them the source code used in the elections.

    The Comelec, on the other hand, insisted that it has not refused to allow Cenpeg to conduct the subject source code review under restrictions that would prevent copying. ######